The only key points I wanted to make were around the alternatives.
I think everyone here agrees that keeping plastics out of the environment is the right issue. The fundamental concept I wanted to get across is to say that if we move to an alternative material, let's make sure that it's not going to have a larger environmental impact in production, that it's not going to have a larger environmental impact in collection and reuse, and finally, let's make sure that when it does break down and finds its way into the environment, it isn't going to represent an even more hazardous substance. Fundamentally, those are the three points we've been debating here, but I don't know that we've integrated them.
The final point I was going to make on this, and then I'll close, concerns my observations from visiting waste management companies and from other things we've done to try to understand this issue. We're rather pitting one side against the other here. My final point was that I think doing so is a mistake. Nobody's going to win in doing so.
There have been salient and good arguments made by many people that we have to control plastics finding a way into the environment. I'm not arguing with any of those fundamental principles. The concern I have is that when we talk about how we do this, how do we make sure that not only plastics but all waste doesn't find its way into the environment? What does it mean to identify materials that can be reused? What does it mean to have waste management bring enough of it back to make it economic to reprocess and reuse effectively?
Those are the closing comments. It's a system-level problem, and I find we're looking at it in too many small pieces, rather than together. That's probably my most significant comment.